[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Pretty much what Lbird is saying, AFAICS.

Nothing like what I'm saying, but don't let that interfere with your fantasy.Unless you (and DJP) are prepared to discuss the philosophical and ideological differences (and similarities) between thinkers (including Marx and Engels), then you'll never understand what 'LBird is saying'.But then, for 'materialists', this is a pointless exercise, because they have access to 'The Truth', and the very concept that 'ideas' are required to understand 'material', and thus that both must be examined, because changing 'ideas' changes understanding of 'material', is anathema to 'materialists'. They have access to the 'material' as it is, and 'what is' thus cannot be criticised. How can 'truth' be criticised, if the 'truth' is identical to 'what exists'. Their 'understanding' is given by the 'material', because their knowledge of the 'material' is a copy, a reflection of 'reality'.Why not read the book ALB says is recommended reading by the SPGB? That is, Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy edited by Bottomore and Rubel. At least it's a start for critical thinking about Marx's 'materialism'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

You seem to have misunderstood what part of the sentence I objected to. 

Quote:

For a communist

a communist can hold any philosophical view, as long as they believe in the common ownership of wealth, whether they are theistically inspired, idealistically inspired or materialistically inspired, they remain communists. So what you wrote was simple not true, in any sense, and cannot be defended.

Spoken like a true liberal, for whom 'individual choice' reigns supreme.Politics and power really are a mystery to you, YMS.If you don't want to discuss Marx's 'materialism', then please ignore me.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

For a Communist, the ideas are as real as the physical.

This, of course, is completely untrue and galavanting ignorant rubbish.

You need to either speak to ALB, or read Dietzgen. Or any Critical Realist.Or just get out more.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Your question just doesn't make sense…

So why not draw the conclusion that what I'm saying is of no interest to you, because it is senseless, and just ignore me?I've done my best to point out why we disagree (we have different philosophical assumptions), but you don't seem interested in exploring our differences.This is a philosophical issue, not one of 'physics'.That is, it's about 'science' as a human (and therefore ideological) activity, not about 'science' as a 'discovery method for Material Truth'.So, my 'question' won't 'make sense' to you.

[LBird]

A further reference for ALB.

Marx, quoted in Bottomore and Rubel, p. 31, wrote:

…materialist-critical socialism…

In Marx Engels Selected Correspondence, this is given as

Marx, MESC, p. 310, wrote:

…materialistically critical socialism…

Marx to F. A. Sorge, October 19th, 1877

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Strawson wrote:

Materialism is the view that every real, concrete phenomenon in the universe is physical.

This is an ideological statement.Strawson is not a Communist.For a Communist, the ideas are as real as the physical.Marx argues that not one iota of matter can be found in 'value'. It is not simply physical.Value is 'ideal-material'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

It just that 'mental' is a catergory of "material" phenomena…

So why can't the ideal supervene on the material, and the material supervene on the ideal?If the 'mental' is 'material', then ideas must produce material.You deny this by arguing for 'physicalism', which is just the modern term for 'mechanical materialism'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Since when have you been a communist?  That comes as a complete surprise to me.

It doesn't come as a surprise to me that you don't recognise the significance of political ideology in science, because you're not a Communist.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

If that's the case, then fine, we should come up with another term which captures the necessity of regarding the 'ideal' and the 'material' as being of equal significance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monismWhy reinvent the wheel?

From a very brief look, YMS, the thinkers referred to seem to be 'pragmatists'.They are not Socialists/Communists.If your ideology says that 'science' can be done without involving 'politics', then this link may be of some use to you.Because I'm a Communist, I don't think that any human 'theory and practice' can be done without a consideration of 'society'. The pragmatists ignore society, and focus on individuals and their personal experiences. Pragmatism is rooted in 19th century US social and political thinking.'Materialists' ignore ideology, whereas Communists don't.

[LBird]

At least you're prepared to continue to engage with this problem, ALB. Bottomore and Rubel's book is one of the sources that started me on this apparently thankless task.

ALB wrote:

Looks like a 1 all draw then, unless Marx's preparedness to be regarded as some kind of 'materialist' is not taken into account (how could he not have been prepared to given the number of times he used the word 'material' ! )

Why you (and others) keep arguing that 'Marx was prepared to be regarded as some kind of 'materialist', as some sort of comeback to those thinkers who themselves keep saying that 'Marx was some kind of materialist' (including me, when I use the formulation 'idealist-MATERIALIST'), I don't know.It's as if the word 'materialist' has for youse a religious conotation, and the reciting of it wards off evil, especially in the guise of nasty 'Idealists', that Engels warned you about.Unless, as Bottomore, Rubel and lots of other Marxists and Communists have said for nearly a century, we discuss the problematic meaning of 'materialism', then we'll remain stuck in the 19th century.

ALB wrote:

In any event, I would have thought that the word "productionist" would be open to a greater misunderstanding than "materialist".

If that's the case, then fine, we should come up with another term which captures the necessity of regarding the 'ideal' and the 'material' as being of equal significance. Polemically, I've used 'idealism-materialism', as these are the terms used in the Theses on Feuerbach by Marx, and any comrades reading the text for the first time, needs to be familiar with those terms and their relationships and refashioning by Marx within the text.

ALB wrote:

If people don't like "historical materialism", what about "social materialism"?

No. Because it contains the term 'materialism', but not the term of equal significance for humans and their knowledge, 'idealism', Marx's 'active side'. Either both are included, or both are removed and a new term, which captures human theory and practice ('production', perhaps?). Whilst the term only includes 'materialism', we'll continue with comrades thinking it's only about 'materialism' (ie. physical things, touchable objects, (even biological 'sense-impressions', as opposed to 'perception', which is social and requires 'ideas')).Given that you've read Dietzgen, ALB, whereas the rest here seem not to have, you're aware of his argument about the equality of 'things' and 'ideas', and that he tried to capture this 'idealism-materialism' with his term 'dialectical materialism', which for him amounted to the same thing as my term. [to any other comrades reading, Dietzgen's 'dia mat' is nothing to do with the later 'Dialectical Materialism' of Engels, the Second International, and the Russians].Since you are aware of this sensitivity to 'materialism' since Marx was still alive, I'm not sure why you can't see that there are three 'distinctions' (your term) to be drawn, between 'idealism', 'materialism' and a third which Marx clearly argued for in his Theses.The best I can come up with is that in  the context of his times, Marx was so opposed to 'religion', and identified modern 'idealism' as synonymous with it, and so felt thus compelled to retain 'materialism' in his discussion of human social production, that he wasn't aware of how it would pan out as the 19th century progressed. The massive advances by bourgeois science using positivism and its 'truths' about the 'material world' (and its separation of 'social' and 'physical' science) would not have been apparent to Marx for much of his life.Whatever happened, there is no excuse for us not to use the advances of the 20th century to help us to understand Marx's work (especially as Engels, when not discussing 'matter' and 'material', actually was in step with Marx's 'idealism-materialism').Put simply, Marx wasn't a 'materialist', in the common usage of that term, which is the exclusion of the 'ideal'. If 'ideas' are removed from our class' approach, then they will be re-inserted later by others. And I mean by 'The Party'.PS. please, in any replies by anyone, don't simply say what's been said before, addressed by me, and my replies ignored.

[LBird]

I've dealt with these so-called 'objections', time and time again.I know Engels was involved in the GI. That's why in his 'science and nature' writings he contradicts himself. He was confused about 'materialism'.I know Engels wrote about 'materialist conception of history'. The point is, Marx thought of nature as inseparable from human history, too, whereas Engels didn't.Why these 'objections' are trotted out each time, I don't know.

ALB wrote:

The distinction you are trying to draw is (I think) between philosophical materialism (as a theory of the nature of "reality") and materialist conception of history (as a theory of history and society).

[my bold]No, I wish comrades would read what I write, rather than what they want me to have written.Your 'philosophical materialism' is Engels' view. This is in effect MATERIALISM.Your 'materialist conception of history' is a mythical Marx, who saw his ideas as including 'nature', so his 'm c of h and s' was not a 'theory of history and society' which is separate from 'nature'. Your concept here is in effect IDEALISM.I'm trying to lay a basis for a unified 'theory of human production' (ie. Marx's aim), which includes both human ideas, history and society, and their interaction with nature.Marx doesn't separate out 'nature' from 'society', so neither of your 'distinctions' are Marx's view, which on the contrary is IDEALISM-MATERIALISM.If comrades disagree with me, as I keep saying, that's fine.But at least come to understand what I'm saying, and so know what you disagree with.I'm asking how can a unified philosophy of 'theory and practice', which requires both ideas and nature, be covered by either 'philosophical materialism' (which ignores human ideas/consciousness/society/history) or by (what you call above) 'materialist conception of history' which is about 'history and society' (but not nature)?I keep saying it, but there is a third alternative, and it is the one Marx outlined in the Theses on Feuerbach, a unifying of parts of both idealism and materialism, and a rejection of parts of id. and mat.So, please ALB, recognise that I'm drawing THREE 'distinctions', not TWO.

ALB wrote:

Having said this I think Marx will have been some kind of philosophical materialist too (how could he have been anything else?),…

[my bold]What part of 'idealism-MATERIALISM'  do you seem to be unable to grasp? Why you keep saying that I'm ignoring Marx's 'materialism', I don't know. I'm saying he's both an idealist and a materialist: hence, theory and practice.All I ask is that comrades read the section of the GI that I've quoted above. It's clear that Marx is discussing human production when he talks of 'materialism', and not 'physical things'. He talking as much about 'ideas' as about 'material'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I think you're mistaken. Marx was clearly a goatist, that is he thought that everything is a goat. I have used the Microsoft Word autocorrect feature to correct the entire Marx and Engles collected works so now every reference to "material" and "materialism" has been changed to "goat" and "goatism" respectivly.More on goatism can be found here:https://philosophynow.org/issues/71/Everything_is_a_Goat

You're not doing the reputation of the SPGB any favours by giving childish answers to serious philosophical problems confronting workers who wish to move towards socialist ideas, DJP.The fact that you don't even understand that there is a problem with 'materialism', never mind your inability to wrestle with it by discussing Marx, Engels and the later Marxists, and philosophers of science, in a serious way, is now very clear to anyone reading these continuing discussions.I'd recommend that the SPGB get some other members, who can critically discuss these issues, to intervene.What's most laughable is that what I'm proposing would give a serious philosophical basis to the SPGB's politics, which Engels' 'materialism' clearly doesn't, but that members like DJP can't even see the contradictions between 'materialism' and SPGB strategy.I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it: Engels' 'materialism' provides a philosophical basis to Leninism.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

 To me, Morris is far more a 'Marxist' than any Leninist. But that doesn't help in determining why workers have been so reluctant 'to do without masters'.

Could well be due to social conditioning promoting a dependency culture on Leaders?

That's part of the 'ruling class ideas', of course, Brian.But I think it has as much, if not more, to do with lack of confidence. If one gets rid of 'leaders', one has to 'do things for oneself'. It's not enough to be simply critical of 'masters', one has to have experience of 'leading' oneself.Of course, this 'building of confidence' and giving 'experience of leadership' should be part and parcel of joining a socialist party. But the Leninist parties do the exact opposite: they teach initially critical workers (who've rejected capitalism and joined their party) to be subservient, again, to party, central committees, full-timers, cadre… oh yes, and 'matter'.The culture of any workers' party should be to encourage workers to criticise the party itself. If the party is of any use at all to workers, it will be able to deal with any criticisms, and by persuasion keep the party together. Workers running their own branches, without 'full-timer' interference, meetings that criticise the party's own publications, lead by the newest members (where the old hands are kept under the leash of the elected chair), and open and encouraged 'factional' activity, amongst many other techniques, would help to develop the self-confidence of party members.I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Unlike comrades like YMS who blame workers for not choosing 'socialism', I blame socialists for not developing workers whenever they take an interest. Tens (hundreds?) of thousands of workers have been through the Trotskyist parties, in the UK alone. Don't all socialist parties end up ejecting (either formally or by culture) those workers who are critical, those who won't 'toe the party line'?In my experience, counting myself and every other worker I've known who's ever been a member of a 'socialist' party, they've left, not because of 'dependency culture', but because they've realised that the 'socialism' espoused by these parties is a load of nonsense.I'd like to end this post on a comradely note, Brian.But I can't. I put 'materialism' at the top of the philosophical list for these shennanigans. That's always the excuse for knowing better than workers do themselves. 'Material conditions' or 'matter'. After all, one can't criticise 'matter', can one? And that's the start of the rot. From the head down.IMO most party 'leaders' are as thick as pigshit.Can't get less 'dependency culture on Leaders' than that, can we? Morris would have agreed with me, of course.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Morris wrote:

… all but a very small minority are not prepared to do without masters. They do not believe in their own capacity to undertake the management of affairs, and to be responsible for their life in this world.

I can't help but reading 'elite scientists' as also included in Morris' 'masters'.[don't answer that point, ALB, it's a poor, even insensitive, joke]

ALB wrote:

As you say, the situation is (unfortunately) much the same today. It can also be seen why we in the SPGB like Morris.

Yeah, what little I know of Morris (not much beyond what you've written today and in the past here), he seems pretty solid.But, like Marx, he can be criticised for being too optimistic about workers' self-development. This is also by far the weakest part of the arguments that I make too, but a weakness that other socialists can't exploit in polemics, without sounding like Leninists.Of course, the Leninists themselves don't have that disadvantage, when arguing with me, and so can stress the role of a party which has a 'special consciousness' denied to the dumb workers.To me, Morris is far more a 'Marxist' than any Leninist. But that doesn't help in determining why workers have been so reluctant 'to do without masters'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Of course. "Make Socialists" is a simplification. I used it because it is a term William Morris frequently used…

Yeah, I recognise that, but what I'm saying is that given the events of the 20th century (2nd International, 1917, Leninism, Stalin, all the other 'socialist states' including the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea) which Morris didn't live through, it's as well to adapt Morris' term 'make' (which suggests Uncle Joe and Pol Pot to many) to 'help develop' or somesuch.

ALB wrote:

William Morris wrote:

…in spite of the stir in the ranks of labour, there are comparatively few who understand what Socialism is…

I think that this is as true now, as it was then, and was throughout the 20th century. 'Labour stirring' will not lead to socialism. All the activity and practice in the world will not lead to socialism, unless the 'stirring, struggling, activity and practice' is consciously aimed at producing socialism.Fighting for wage rises is not class consciousness. That will not 'develop' or 'make' socialists.Only when workers have already come to doubt the 'wage system' and have been offered an alternative by socialists, will any fighting be conscious. Practice does not lead to theory.Contrary to what some comrades have argued on other threads, I agree with Morris and some other comrades that 'there are comparatively few who understand what Socialism is'.And I blame socialists since Marx for not making the message easier to understand, not the many workers who've been confronted with all sorts of nonsense called 'socialism', and, after taking a glance, have wisely chosen to avoid it.

[Author]

Posts